The Obamacare mandate delay is not only embarrassing for the administration, it will be expensive
The National Review Online has a great piece today describing the timing of the announcement of the delay as well as how it sends an embarrassing signal of failure to the country.
…there is no hiding the embarrassment of a climb-down on a high-profile feature of President Barack Obama’s signature initiative. Although the administration was determined to do all it could to hide it. Obama was apparently planning to announce it on July 3 — only because the day before Thanksgiving or Christmas Eve was too far off.
The purported reason for the delay is incompetence. The administration’s story is that it simply couldn’t find a way to implement the insurance-reporting requirements on employers in the time frame set out in the law. Merely as a side effect, it had to put off the mandate and the $2,000-per-employee fine on employers with more than 50 employees who don’t offer health coverage.
This just happens to be the mandate that is causing howls of pain from businesses and creating perverse incentives for them to limit their hiring or to hire part-time rather than full-time employees. And it just happens that 2015 — the new target for implementation — is after a midterm election year rather than during one.
Read the Rest
But the embarrassment of having to delay Obama’s “signature achievement” is only one of Obama’s problems. Apparently it’s going to be quite costly to do so.
…The delay is the second this year to significantly affect the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. In the spring, the Obama administration said small businesses that want to offer employee coverage through the exchanges will only be able to select one plan in the 34 states where the marketplaces are run by the federal government.
Tuesday’s delay will be costly.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal government will lose $10 billion in employer penalties in 2015 because of the delayed enforcement. Likewise, many expect that federal outlays to help low- and moderate-income people purchase coverage will grow with employers no longer required to provide coverage next year.
Read the Rest
It’s amazing to me that the
King President of the United States can simply choose to implement (or not implement) an act of Congress at will. If I understand the Constitution correctly, that’s not his decision to make. I’m not sure why no one is calling him on it. If a Republican is elected next, can he or she simply delay its implementation for, say, 100 years? If not, why not?
Look, everything about this terrible law is a disaster. Everything. And I hope Democrats realize just how much they traded in order to get it. Just think, if it weren’t for the Democrats pushing through Obamacare, they would have probably maintained a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, kept the majority in the House of Representatives and not lost more than 700 state and local seats–including governorships in 2010. This would have allowed them to do virtually anything they wanted, both at the national level and the state level. Strict gun control? No problem. Raise the debt ceiling? Piece of cake. Gender “equality” wage laws? Easy. Cap and Trade? In their sleep. They could have done all of these things and more. But they were determined to ram through the largest single piece of legislation ever passed, legislation that would turn out to be so despised, even several years later, that people would support its repeal by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.
We must not give up the fight against Obamacare. It’s an unworkable nightmare that must be repealed and we must remember to only vote for politicians who will fight relentlessly to repeal it in its entirety.